Pentecostalism and Shamanism in Asia and Beyond An Inter-disciplinary Analysis Alena Govorounova “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.” Isaac Newton, Third Law of Motion, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica “The unlike is joined together, and from differences results the most beautiful harmony, and all things take place by strife.” Heraclitus of Ephesus, On Nature Erich Neumann suggests in The Origins and History of Con- sciousness that human consciousness is subjected to the constant process of centroversion and differentiation (Neumann 1973, 261). This tendency of human thought—to constantly strive toward polarities and reorganize itself again as a holistic mode—seems to pertain to all layers of human cog- nitive architecture, from archetypal pre-reflective self-awareness to highly analytical interpretative supra-consciousness. It is reflected in the evolution of cultures and civilizations and it seems to be the driving force behind his- * Alena Govorounova is a Research Associate at the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture. The quotations from the Bible are from the niv (New International Version, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984). 54 alena govorounova | 55 torical changes in the intellectual climate and scientific paradigm shifts (see Kuhn 1962). As Friedrich Nietzsche (1999 [1888]; 1966 [1886]) once ironi- cally observed, we are doomed to think in opposites and controversies, we are trapped in categorical dualisms of “good and evil,” we are conditioned by contrast-based human language, where each unit of meaning is defined against what it is not. We are carried away in the endless play of différance1 in search for identity and meaning and we need the Other to define who we are. We conceptualize reality in binary oppositions2 of self/other, subject/ object, center/margins; we are cognitively wired to centralize certain ele- ments of the system and marginalize others. Binary oppositions are categor- ically inseparable, for there is no self without other and no center without margins. However, as Nietzsche shrewdly warned us, dualisms are poten- tially reversible, essentially unsteady and easily alterable.3 Once we reaffirm the intrinsic value of the previously marginalized ideas, movements, and social groups, they start gravitating towards the center, undermine the sig- nificance of the previously centralized elements, and establish new power relations and regimes of truth;4 history repeats itself. The perpetual process of centroversion and differentiation is traceable in the evolution of religions and spiritual traditions. Religious consciousness is subjected to the same cognitive mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, cen- tralizing and decentralizing. Religious doctrines and canons are constantly shrinking or expanding, overlapping and dissociating; religious “truths” are bouncing off one another in the quest for meaning and authentication. The 1. Différance is a term coined by Jacque Derrida to describe the way in which any sin- gle meaning of a concept or text arises only by the effacement of other possible meanings. Derrida coined the term différance (a deliberate misspelling of difference, a play on the two meanings of the French word différer: to differ and to defer) in order to demonstrate that a meaning does not arise out of fixed differences between static elements in a given con- ceptual system, but that the meanings produced in language and other signifying systems are always partial, provisional, and infinitely deferred along a chain of differing/deferring signifiers. See Derrida 1974 and 1980. 2. Binary oppositions signifies a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning (the term originated in the structuralist theory of Ferdinand de Saussure). 3. I refer to the Nietzschean On the Genealogy of Morals (2003 [1887]), where he attacks the Christian fixation on the opposition of “good and bad” and reinterprets it in terms of a “master-slave” dialectic, which is a reversible relational paradigm. 4. Regime of truth is a concept coined by Michel Foucault to describe how each society creates a regime of truth according to its beliefs, values, and mores. See Foucault 1980. 56 | Pentecostalism and Shamanism pendulum swings between strict dogmatism and more liberal syncretism, radical sectarianism and reconciliatory ecumenism, harsh exclusionism and all-embracing universalism. The picture becomes even more complicated when we realize that the tendency to centroversion and differentiation is not simply two-sided: countless combinations of concepts and multiple layers of meaning are involved in the process. Pentecostalism and shamanism make an interesting case study in this regard, with the two spiritual charismatic traditions— monotheistic and polytheistic— as mutually exclusive and yet categorically inseparable polari- ties, which include, exclude, centralize, marginalize and ultimately define one another. The academic struggle to define their mutual relationships is overcomplicated by the reality that academic thought is likewise prone to the never-ending process of centroversion and differentiation. This may partly account for why there is so much debate on the relations between Pentecostalism and shamanism in the sociology of religion: some claim that Pentecostalism and shamanism are the categorical opposites by point- ing to numerous doctrinal contradictions between the two traditions. After all, the official Christian doctrine strongly dissociates itself from the “hea- then” world and explicitly bans all kinds of occult spiritual practices out- side Christianity. Others claim that Pentecostal and shamanistic spirituality are ontologically identical in the base and that theological doctrines are but interpretative superstructures5; therefore, any doctrinal theological contra- dictions between Pentecostalism and shamanism are irrelevant to the social scientific discussion. So, how do we define Pentecostalism against shamanism and vice versa? Is the contrastive-comparative approach legitimate at all? What would be the basis for the comparison? Is it doctrinal? Is it subjective-experiential? Is it an independent observant perspective? Should Christian theological doctrine be taken into account in this discussion? Should we recognize the first-person experiential accounts of Pentecostal believers and indigenous 5. Base and superstructure is Marxian terminology, where the base signifies the forces and relations of production in a society and the superstructure includes its culture, institu- tions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. The base determines (conditions) the superstructure, yet their relation is not strictly causal, because the superstructure often influences the base; the influence of the base, however, predominates (see Marx 2010 [1859]). alena govorounova | 57 shamans as valid research data? Or maybe we should stay strictly confined to an exclusively third-person researcher perspective? In other words, is the “marriage” between Christian theology and the sociology of religion possible? Pentecostalism and Shamanism: The Surface-level Academic Controversy Why does the dichotomy of Pentecostalism versus shamanism gen- erate so much controversy among the sociologists of religion? How do these two religious traditions relate to each other? What is the common denomi- nator between monotheistic and polytheistic charismatic spiritualities? To begin with, what is Pentecostalism? Pentecostalism is an umbrella term that includes a wide range of Christian denominations that place spe- cial emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through baptism in the Holy Spirit. It emphasizes practical manifestation of the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” in the church today, such as divine healing, prophesy, “discern- ment of spirits” and other forms of supernatural revelation and paranormal cognition. In my observation, Pentecostal congregations largely rely on the experi- ences of the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” for the acquisition of Christian doctri- nal truths. Prophecies, “word of knowledge,” divine healings, and exorcism, among others, constitute a specific “prophetic subculture,” having its own theory and praxis, instructional literature, symbolism, and so forth. Perhaps the most commonly recognized revelatory phenomena are “the message of knowledge/wisdom” and “prophecy” that operate as instant and usually very particular supernatural knowledge of other individuals’ inner thoughts or private undisclosed information. There are many biblical and historical accounts of such supernatural ways of knowing, with the biblical story of the Christ’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4: 4–26) being one of the most famous examples. Pentecostals claim that such revela- tory phenomena did not cease with time and are commonly observed today across Pentecostal and charismatic congregations. What is shamanism? Shamanism is primarily defined as a polytheistic and poly-demonic religion based on the animistic worship of spirit beings. It emphasizes direct communication with the spirits, healing, prophesy (forecasting), and other forms of paranormal cognition and precognition. 58 | Pentecostalism and Shamanism Mircea Eliade (1972, 4) defines shamanism as “techniques of ecstasy” (or what is termed today as “altered states of consciousness”) and shamans as “specialists in the sacred” (Eliade and Trask 1972, 509). Shamans are psychic healers and spiritual mediums, who possess the ability to channel supernatural spirits though trance,